And “warmist” isn’t also a term of disparagement??
Vox vs. Breitbart. Now that is fair and balanced. 
1 Like
Ha ha. I don’t think so. You know that “denialist” or “denier” are terms which have become associated with those who deny the Nazi holocaust, an obvious truth. That’s the proper and accepted use and the environmentalists have just snitched it and tried to stick it on people who disagree with them.
What exactly do the denialists deny?
I’m convinced we have weather and it keeps changing
1 Like
This article may be of interest:
All of his research is funded by ExxonMobil. I’m sure he is completely unbiased.
Wow! Now we cite Breitbart as a source of news?
1 Like
Having failed to argue any facts about disastrous global warming, sinking islands, shonky “science” (costing the world $trillions), the warmists shriek about a few pennies wasted by bureaucrats.
Shades of your virtue in getting Al Capone, not for devastating racketeering, extortions, murders, fraud and corruption but for tax irregularities.
I deplore waste and extravagance as much as the next man but can we stick to the subject? It’s not as though waste and extravagance are rarities in US politics.
1 Like
Ha ha. Evidence? Even a shred of it?
And if ExxonMobil is so evil, no doubt you personally boycott each and every of its products and their derivatives.
He is a political appointee. If he had been a bureaucrat he would have been fired long ago.
(Pity there are different rules for different fools)
Al Capone may have contributed to global warming in some form, but what has he got to do with the present argument??
PS> As a Naval man I’m sure you contributed your fair share to the waste of taxpayer’s money.
I’d be more ashamed of citing CNN.
My pennyworth (we have pennies not cents in England) is that we have become a secular world where religion is loosing influence, all things natural has become a new form or belief. Instead of church and bible we now have academics and computer models.
Thus anyone who questions the new god is a heritic.
There may be some science behind the claims. But I see a lot of people trying to force their opinions on others. And as I said elsewhere, in a global context, the local legislation forced through by the environmental zealots has little effect when China and India are developing at such an enormous rate powered by dirty coal.
4 Likes
I understand he says the bureaucrats spent the money but either way, a waste is still a waste and not that rare, unfortunately.
The argument is the same. You couldn’t get Al for what he was infamous for so went for the trivia, and the EPA is infamous for environmental crimes against citizens and businesses costing heaps and you cry about the pennies in the hope he’ll be sacked probably only to be replaced by someone of the same ilk. But he won’t be sacked because he’s doing the job he was hired to do and saving the nation much more than he’s wasting.
I’m sure I have, but in the navy we followed orders, were accountable, risked disgrace and dishonour and sacking, even jail if we didn’t and ultimately got the job done. Not the same treatment as the shiny bum pen pushers buried in the deep state.
It may interest you to know my cash spending authorisation as a CO was $25. Other stuff went through the shiny bums. I was once advised in a private, off the record conversation with my admiral that bribes and ‘gifts’ to get my ship through the Suez Canal were strictly no no, but that he had, he said smiling, once ordered a water barge for essential top up in similar circumstances. Nothing further was said.
Has anyone ever got through Suez without a bribe?
The Fighting Has Begun Over Who Owns Land Drowned by Climate Change
For centuries, a body of law called the public trust doctrine has stipulated that, when it comes to coastal property, anything below the average high-tide line is owned by the government for the use and benefit of the public. Those rules also cover what happens when the high-tide line moves. If that movement happens suddenly—for example, if a portion of beach is washed away by a storm—the land owner retains title to the property provided he or she restores it to dry land.
By contrast, if the high-tide line moves slowly, state ownership moves with it. And because it’s Mother Nature taking the land, not the government, there’s no legal requirement for the government to compensate property owners.
I think “climate change” has become a catch-all excuse for far too many ills. Is the inundation even the result of climate? There are lots of non-climate reasons sea levels change, but why blame them when we have this modern invention and ready made whipping boy to flog?
Never let lawyers decide.
New study from the Federal Reserve Bank of Richmond finds that rising temperatures due to climate change could reduce U.S. economic growth by up to 1/3rd over the next century.
How on earth would a bank know what the economy of the USA is going to be over a century away? Did this bank predict the GFC? Did it predict US involvement in World War I a century ago? Did it predict nuclear energy, the pace of advance in electronics , the agricultural advances, a need for lithium, or turning fossil fuels into plastics?
It”ll be the biggest, richest bank in the world if it backs this prediction … and it happens.
Here’s the question for you. Will this bank back this prediction with it’s total business strategy and keep it up for a century?
It’s a fantasy, an intellectual wank. For every study like this, I could produce another predicting the opposite. For every study making stupid predictions, I could produce another showing the actual ability of experts predicting anything at all.
Here’s a piece that might test your faith in experts. A killer quote,
“In 2017 we asked nearly 12,000 people in 14 countries to answer our questions. They scored on average just two correct answers out of the first twelve. No one got full marks, and just one person (in Sweden) got 11 out of 12. A stunning 15 per cent scored zero. Did well-educated people do better? No. Some of the most appalling results came from a group of Nobel laureates and medical researchers. It is not a question of intelligence. Everyone seems to get the world devastatingly wrong. Since these are forced-choice questions, you might expect to get one third of the answers right just by chance.”
1 Like
Tugs,
You are forgetting the first rule of publicity. Grab a headline. Any headline. They are never going to announce that all their forecasts for the past 50 years were wrong and this is likely to be another.
1 Like
“It’s tough to make predictions, especially about the future.” Yogi Berra.
I’m still waiting to find out why the glaciers in NZ actually grew when other shrank?
The headline should have read;
“Climate Scientist have proven that the world has weather and its not the same everywhere”
1 Like
What is the truth in the statement, “when the vast majority of the world’s glaciers were shrinking in a warming world”?
We haven’t even identified all the glaciers for a start. Has anybody checked the ice building at the glacier source? Is the climate warming where the glaciers actually are? The world’s temperature is irrelevant and a fictional number at best.
So when we have the data for all 200,000 approx ofthe world’s glaciers individually, the smarty pants can make 200,000 individual predictions and then we can test their theories. Until then, be skeptical, be vewy skeptical.